Posted on 05/01/2002 4:39:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
The notion that Lincoln’s Union preceded the states is a tall tale. Author Tom DiLorenzo, in his celebrated new book, The Real Lincoln, calls it Lincoln’s spectacular lie, as so named by Emory University philosopher, Donald Livingston.
The War Between the States was fought, in Lincoln’s mind, to preserve the sanctity of centralization powered by a strong and unchecked federal government. Only through such an established order could Lincoln do his Whig friends the honor of advancing The American System, a mercantilist arrangement that spawned corporate welfare, a monetary monopoly for the Feds, and a protectionist tariff approach that stymied free traders everywhere.
This power role for the Feds, as envisioned by Lincoln, had no room for the philosophy of the earlier Jeffersonians, who in 1798, were declaring that states’ rights were supreme. Both Madison and Jefferson, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, legitimized the concept of state sovereignty via the policy of nullification, an inherent right for states to declare federal acts invalid if unconstitutional. And before that, let it be duly noted that the right to secede is, as DiLorenzo says, “not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.”
Lincoln, however, believed that secession was basically an act of treason. To him, the glory of the Union was based upon a holier-than-thou view of the core elites who would run the Washington Machine, doling out the federal largesse to its friends and political supporters, those mostly being Northern manufacturers and merchants. Therefore, the Southern secessionist movement and its claim of self-rule violated the Lincolnian principle of nationalization and coercive law in his move toward complete centralization. So what was Lincoln to do?
Lincoln had to stamp out Southern Independence, and would start with a demonization of secession as “an ingenious sophism.” DiLorenzo focuses on the two political arguments Lincoln used against secession, one being that secession inevitably meant anarchy, which therefore violated the principle of majority rule. As DiLorenzo points out, the founders of our system of government “clearly understood that political decisions under majority rule are always more to the liking of the voters in a smaller political unit.” The other Lincoln argument against peaceful secession is that allowing the Southern states to secede would lead to more secession, which in turn leads to anarchy. Clearly, that is a crass argument that would not stand the test of time.
“The advocates of secession”, says DiLorenzo, “always understood that it stood as a powerful check on the expansive proclivities of government and that even the threat of secession or nullification could modify the federal government’s inclination to overstep its constitutional bounds.”
DiLorenzo takes the reader on a summarized journey of secessionist history, from the earliest parting by colonialists from the wrath of King George, to the New England secessionists, who pre-dated the Southern movement by over a half-century. Oddly enough, it was the New England Federalists that had first threatened to dissolve the Union because of an intense hatred of Southern aristocracy. Beginning with the election of Jefferson to the Presidency, an intense battle over individual morality, immigration, trade restrictions, and regional principles sparked a division between the Puritan Northeast and a more freewheeling and influential South. In order to eliminate all political ties, the Northeasterners tried in vain to break the bonds of Union, and the movement lasted until the failed Secessionist Convention in 1814, as the War of 1812 came to a close.
As the author points out, during the entire New England ordeal, there is virtually no literature to be found that supports the view that the inherent right to secession was non-existent. It was, in fact, really never questioned.
Eventually, Lincoln needed a trump card and turned to using the institution of slavery as the emotional taffy-pull to rouse the citizenry for a long and bloody war. Though, indeed, the earliest words of Lincoln defy this purpose as he consistently reveled in the triumph of the all-powerful centralized state that would one day achieve “national greatness.” Even DiLorenzo doesn’t attempt to define what this means, but only describes those words as having some sort of “alleged mystical value.” The Lincoln war machine was thus set in motion, with the ends of an Empire run by chosen elites justifying the means of tyranny.
The states, in a Lincolnian democracy, would be forever underneath the footprint of Union hegemony.
I'm not saying she's on the same level as these men but they are both saying the same thing. Face it, this nation was based on a secessionist movement and the attempt to practice it again in the early 1800s is never questioned. Heck, it's hard enough to find material about it!! Why? Because if the general public were to truly study not just the words of lincoln and his worshippers like McPherson, people would begin to see the South wasn't in the wrong and lincoln was
We weren't the ones who brought up secession in the first place. Perhaps you should look to your New England betters in the early part of the 19th century to discuss secessionist leanings
Absolutely false and you've seen this before.
For the Revolution to have been a secessionist movement, the colonists would have had to have the same rights as Englishmen. And they did not.
Any reasonable definition of secession would have to include the concept that it transpired between equals.
You are trying to co-opt the true heroes of the Revolution to lessen the stench of the traitous rebels of 1860-65. And the record --to say nothing of the English language -- won't support it.
Walt
Thanks. The only thing these people hate worse than the United States is the historical record -- it is SO inconvenient for them.
Walt
I guess this serves as proof that one bad smell doesn't cancel another bad smell.
They get a pass because they were slave holders. That seems to be the one common theme.
President Lincoln, who advocated voting rights for blacks, and worked hard for the passage of the 13th amendment is the villian.
It is hard to imagine that all the Lincoln vilifiers are not at least closet white supremacists.
Besmirching Lincoln's memory seems to be the best way for them to help tear down the United States, at least in the anonymous way possible on FR.
Walt
That's right. It's not a big deal.
Federal laws are supreme to state laws, per the Constitution. As long as brave and loyal Union me will come forward to fight for freedom with responsibility, it is definitely not a big deal that the single word "perpetual" doesn't appear in the Constitution.
What happened any way? Can you tell me? We you just minding your own business, maybe riding the school bus, and reading "The South was Right!" and you saw this datum -- that the Constitution dropped the word 'perpetual' -- and you snapped your fingers and said, "you know, that makes sense!"
No, the word iself doesn't appear, but the union of these states is as perpetual as brave patriotic men can make it.
Walt
PINKO ALERT
WLAT! Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:
==================================
Leesylvanian:
Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!
Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):
Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt
780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
That's a lie, Corky.
"After the interview was over, Douglass left the White House with a growing respect for Lincoln. He was "the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely," Douglass said later, "who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."
--"With Malice Towards None, p. 357 by Stephen Oates.
Here's an extra helping of the record, Corky:
Late in October the President had a visit from Sojourner Truth, the elderly black woman who, after having been sold three times on the auction block, escaped to freedom and afterward brought out other fugitives on the Underground Railroad. She declared that she "never was treated by any one with more kindness and cordiality," and she was proud that the President wrote In her autograph book "with the same hand that signed the death-warrant of slavery." "I felt that I was in the presence of a friend," the old woman said, "and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always advocated his cause."
Though abolitionists had often been critical of Lincoln a majority of the reformers now favored his reelection. Earlier in the year the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society was shattered after a debate between its two most notable leaders—Wendell Phillips, who announced that Lincoln had no commitment to liberty and was "knowingly preparing for a peace in disregard for the negro," and William Lloyd Garrison, who countered that the President had shown great capacity for growth and had moved as fast as public opinion allowed. In the months that followed, Phillips became one of the most conspicuous supporters of Fremont's candidacy and vowed that he would "cut off both hands before doing anything to aid Abraham Lincoln's election," while Garrison insisted that if Lincoln had made mistakes "a thousand incidental errors and blunders are easily to be borne with on the part of him who, at one blow, severed the chains of three millions three hundred thousand slaves."
"Lincoln" p 541 by David H. Donald
Walt
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This one sentence pretty much makes your point concerning perpetual Union. The key phrase here is "a more perfect Union." The Union itself is taken for granted -- the Constitution is meant only to improve it.
So what about the nature of that Union? Let's now pass over to Federalist #40, which is basically an argument justifying the replacement of the Articles of Confederation.
One resolution goes as follows: The recommendatory act of Congress is in the words following: "Whereas, there is provision in the articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several States; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present Confederation; as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States a firm national government
IOW, the Union that the Constitution was created to improve upon The Articles of Confederation, which is self-described as "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."
The conclusion is quite obvious. The Constitution was trying to perfect a Union that had already been codified as "Perpetual."
... Not that I expect even such an obvious thing to carry any weight with the master debaters on the other side.
There is ample ground for people of sound understanding, good will and with good historical knowledge, to find Abraham Lincoln worthy ov vilification. These things are matters of opinion and are not ultimately resolvable one way or the other. You can't or won't recognize this. You persist in the delusion that people who don't see the world as you see it are "wrong" while you are "right". You then go on to assume that their "error" must be due to some moral flaw, which you inevitably point out. This results in your being one of the more obnoxious posters on this forum, and your stubborn persistance in you self-delusion makes it impossible for serious people to take you seriously. I don't intend to respond to your posts in the future, nor will I bother to read any more of yours. Flame away all you want, in the end, you are just wasting your time.
LOL! Whoops! There I go losing ground again to an incisive and fact-filled argument.
BTW, are you another democrat voter like Wlat?
Sigh. Yup, an impressive intellectual display on your part. But ya got me. I only vote for Democrats. I vote for them every day, even when there's no election to vote in. I have a voting machine in my living room so that whenever I feel blue I can just walk over and vote a straight D-ticket to cheer myself up. I even voted Democrat on that "What caused the Civil War" poll! Just call me Mr. Democrat.
I have to tell you, far2much: your "Walt-bash" wasn't impressive even the first time, and it's not gained any lustre in its innumerable subsequent postings.
Walt's posts are characterized by tight reasoning, ample documentation, and direct quotes. You, OTOH, are prone to abysmal, fetid rantings. About the nicest thing I can say about you is that you're causing a great deal of harm to your cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.